W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: [widgets] white space handling

From: Cyril Concolato <cyril.concolato@enst.fr>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:36:21 +0100
Message-ID: <4B2BA175.7080100@enst.fr>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
CC: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Hi Robin,

Le 18/12/2009 15:58, Robin Berjon a écrit :
> On Dec 18, 2009, at 13:25 , Cyril Concolato wrote:
>>> For "space characters", why did you add U+000B and U+000C?
>> I think this question is even more important if you note that XHTML 1 indicates that U+000C is an invalid XML char (see http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#C_15)
>
> I don't think that looking at XHTML is the best idea if you want a normative definition for XML :)
I agree but the XML spec is so indigestible sometimes that it's hard to find the proper info. It was a bit digested in XHTML :)

> U+000C is indeed forbidden in XML 1.0 (all editions) but is allowed (IIRC only as a numeric character reference) in XML 1.1.

> P+C doesn't tie processors to a particular version of XML, and lists its white space characters accordingly (and defensively). If you're certain that you will only ever get content that comes from a conforming XML 1.0 implementation, then you probably don't need to check for this.
I don't read it like that. P&C explicitely references XML 1.0 and never mentions 1.1. So I thought the behavior was conformant to 1.0. It's fine if the spec also handles 1.1 but it should be mentioned. Also the rationale for the choices of space characters should also be indicated and the differences between XML 1.0 and XML 1.1 should be present.

Cyril

-- 
Cyril Concolato
Maître de Conférences/Associate Professor
Groupe Mutimedia/Multimedia Group
Telecom ParisTech
46 rue Barrault
75 013 Paris, France
http://concolato.blog.telecom-paristech.fr/
Received on Friday, 18 December 2009 15:36:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:35 GMT